X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:20:27 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtp108.plus.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.206.241] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.5) with SMTP id 1456180 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:21:11 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.142.206.241; envelope-from=djmolny@yahoo.com Received: (qmail 33775 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2006 16:20:47 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:Thread-Index:In-Reply-To; b=DHwCNu5QXBMw+JxG7aLjFGTwDRG3Boj0pq68+Un34QuVyh2QGYWDDxergPxGt2QkliHDm5m69rFGmTMjMxGfQs37TDS9ne4Q8523HJIVTaSNvFmOKgYagrVRzPDAWRhFxTAVsvTVpjucqhsxs0c62hPzgzlk7ivN12btZJ/b4GA= ; Received: from unknown (HELO fastbuilf59189) (djmolny@67.173.237.76 with login) by smtp108.plus.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Oct 2006 16:20:46 -0000 From: "DJ Molny" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Lancair driver make the AVWEB news X-Original-Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:20:42 -0600 X-Original-Message-ID: <002a01c6ed51$33041fc0$6701a8c0@fastbuilf59189> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002B_01C6ED1E.E869AFC0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 Thread-Index: AcbtSlsx1+K6WMHIS8WfgN+nmyeFhwAAHTyg In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C6ED1E.E869AFC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Scotty G writes: > I weighed different factors and felt that the "hi speed" 'warbird' arrival was, in fact, the safest arrival for me to fly. As it turns out, I was able to keep my > speed up to the runway and didn't conflict with any other traffic. It was a nice way to get into a really busy airport. On the other hand, if I had to slow > to follow a Cessna at 90 kts, I would have been nose high to the world, dirty, slow speed far out from the airport, and sweating high oil temperature. I flew into OSH about 10 years ago with three other guys in a T210. If the traffic were doing 90 knots things would have been fine. The reality was 60KIAS combined with S-turns to avoid running over the guys in front of me. I still don't know if the problem was caused by the airspace congestion - the same way highways slow down at rush hour - or some dude putting along in a Luscombe or something. But it was tricky enough in a Cessna, impossible in an aircraft with a higher stall speed. It's too bad that the NOTAM does not permit high performance singles to use the warbird pattern. Perhaps the EAA and FAA would consider amending the NOTAM to allow aircraft with higher stall speeds to use the warbird procedure. I'll drop them a note with that suggestion, others in the group might want to do the same. DJ Molny Extra 300/L N133DF ------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C6ED1E.E869AFC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Scotty G writes:
 
> I weighed different factors and = felt that=20 the "hi speed" 'warbird' arrival was, in fact, the safest arrival for me = to fly.=20 As it turns out, I was able to keep my 
> speed up to the runway and = didn't conflict=20 with any other traffic. It was a nice way to get into a really busy = airport. On=20 the other hand, if I had to slow 
> to follow a Cessna at 90 kts, I = would have=20 been nose high to the world, dirty, slow speed far out from the airport, = and=20 sweating high oil temperature. 
 
I = flew into OSH=20 about 10 years ago with three other guys in a T210.  If the traffic = were=20 doing 90 knots things would have been fine.  The reality was=20 60KIAS combined with S-turns to avoid running over the guys in = front=20 of me.  I still don't know if the problem was caused by the = airspace=20 congestion - the same way highways slow down at rush hour - or some dude = putting=20 along in a Luscombe or something.  But it was tricky enough in a = Cessna,=20 impossible in an aircraft with a higher stall speed.
 
It's = too bad that=20 the NOTAM does not permit high performance singles to use the warbird=20 pattern.  Perhaps the EAA and FAA would consider = amending the=20 NOTAM to allow aircraft with higher stall speeds to use the warbird=20 procedure.  I'll drop them a note with that suggestion, others in = the group=20 might want to do the same.
 
DJ=20 Molny
Extra = 300/L=20 N133DF
------=_NextPart_000_002B_01C6ED1E.E869AFC0--